Wikileaks: Sg Education edu system not helping
-
Singapore education system too stressful already at PSLE. The problems sums my cousin give me to solve, I cannot solve.
-
Maybe the criticism in the U.S cable has merits:
Singapore boasts a highly competitive and well-regarded primary and secondary education system, but the number of Singaporeans completing a tertiary education is relatively low.
Only 23 percent of Singaporean students entering primary school complete a degree at a local four-year university.
In other knowledge-economies such as Japan's, around 50 percent of students complete a university degree.
However, according to Cheryl Chan, Assistant Director of the Planning Division at the Ministry of Education (MOE), the government does not plan to encourage more students to get a higher education.
The university enrollment rate will continue to be maintained at 20-25 percent because the Singaporean labor market does not need everyone to get a four-year degree, she asserted. ¶10.
(SBU) Singapore's education system has been criticized for being heavy on memorization and light on critical thinking and creativity.
Based on the British model, the system is highly test-focused and separates students (a process referred to as "streaming") at an early age between high, middle, and low achievers.
The GOS has slowly begun to introduce greater flexibility into the system by allowing "streaming" in subjects (rather than based on total average scores) and has created new magnet schools focused on mathematics, the arts, and sports.
But there are only three such schools, and the overall education system has changed little.
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2007/02/07SINGAPORE394.html
-
They'd rather let fewer Singaporeans get a university education and make up the shortfall of university graduates from foreign talents.
As opposed to letting more Singaporeans get a tertiary education and make up the shortfall of low skilled labour from foreigners.
From the first day you step into primary school, your career roles have more or less been determined by the greater "god".
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
They'd rather let fewer Singaporeans get a university education and make up the shortfall of university graduates from foreign talents.
As opposed to letting more Singaporeans get a tertiary education and make up the shortfall of low skilled labour from foreigners.
I wonder whether it is due to incompetence, hidden agenda or some rubbish social engineering theory.
MOE's reputation has dropped in my eyes. They are garbage.
I think MOE should issue a statement regarding their policy of restricting places in universities for Singaporeans while using taxpayer's money to fund PRC scholarships.
I want to see what kind of rubbish argument they can push.
MOE, I am waiting for your statement, Lee Kuan Yew also issued his statement regarding his slurs on Islam in order to cover his ass, you should also issue some kind of statement on your rubbish policy.
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 25:
I wonder whether it is due to incompetence, hidden agenda or some rubbish social engineering theory.
MOE's reputation has dropped in my eyes. They are garbage.
I think MOE should issue a statement regarding their policy of restricting places in universities for Singaporeans while using taxpayer's money to fund PRC scholarships.
I want to see what kind of rubbish argument they can push.
MOE, I am waiting for your statement, Lee Kuan Yew also issued his statement regarding his slurs on Islam in order to cover his ass, you should also issue some kind of statement on your rubbish policy.
Actually, the only policy-maker in the country is LKY. He's the supreme leader, and he is a visionary man. Although I don't really like him (personally), but his far-thinking has impressed me this time round. -
Originally posted by βÎτά:
They'd rather let fewer Singaporeans get a university education and make up the shortfall of university graduates from foreign talents.
As opposed to letting more Singaporeans get a tertiary education and make up the shortfall of low skilled labour from foreigners.
From the first day you step into primary school, your career roles have more or less been determined by the greater "god".
Many parents begin the upbringing with family education and never submit their children to the "god" that the "satan" revere.
Many young people decide their own life, based on what they want, and what they are capable of. they have never allowed their lives to be dictated by the "god" or his opponent, the "satan".
woes to Singapore the day we give our children tertiary education to make up the shortfall of the low skilled labour.
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 25:
A lot of those development texts are also full of shit. For example in 60s, 70s, they said that Singapore was overpopulated and the population must be reduced, so the PAP came up with the idiotic "stop at 2" campaign.
They aren't that rubbishy.You are expected to read them with a pinch of salt.
Its like how application of the Solow's Growth Model predicted SG would shrivel come the 1990s.
They applied it practically blindly....although it is to an extent justifiable.
Why don't you write one and let me critique?
-
Government is the problem - Ronald Reagan
I'm not being anti-government by saying that^. What strikes me is that majority of Singaporeans are too used to being fed and led.
Perhaps its overly idealistic in believing that appropriate education to the masses is able solve several social issues which currently most see those issues as the government's duty.
Perhaps LKY is right that Singaporeans are not ready to be global citizens... yet.
Perhaps the people are right to be led by some governance.
Perhaps everyone is looking to govern themselves.
But everyone please understand that school<education. Certification are no more than price tags to the manpower market.
And I'm not saying anything bad about institutional education at all.
-
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Government is the problem - Ronald Reagan
I'm not being anti-government by saying that^. What strikes me is that majority of Singaporeans are too used to being fed and led.
Perhaps its overly idealistic in believing that appropriate education to the masses is able solve several social issues which currently most see those issues as the government's duty.
Perhaps LKY is right that Singaporeans are not ready to be global citizens... yet.
Perhaps the people are right to be led by some governance.
Perhaps everyone is looking to govern themselves.
But everyone please understand that school<education. Certification are no more than price tags to the manpower market.
And I'm not saying anything bad about institutional education at all.
One of the few unbiased remarks. fully agree.
Many people think only anti government remarks are independent and good remarks, but they hold the government responsible for teaching and inculcating independent and resourceful thinking.
Civilization began when human being live together as a society and led by leaders abiding a set of rules that strive to achieve prosperity peace and harmony for the society. Respect must first be given to the elected leaders of the society, then we can discuss if the set of values continue to reflect our common values.
and what is our common values? make more money? higher GDP? be no. 1 in the world? that is where the government is the problem!!!
-
The education system of Singapore doesn't work because of the 'pro-girl sexism' I speak of.
'Pro-girl sexism' = society forces males of all ages to treat a girl-child "better" than boy-child of the same age and provide this treatment solely on the basis on gender.
"Better" = the following:
1. More compassion
2. More sympathy
3. More respect
4. More gentleness
5. More easiness
6. More empathy
7. More cleanliness
8. More protection
9. More luxury
10. More personal space
11. More privacy
12. More security
13. More freedom
14. More modesty
15. More decency... along with *less* physical contact.
This 'pro-girl sexism' causes sweet boys [like Chen] to suffer in the hands of bitter girls [like Xinyi] and evil men [like Xinyi's father]. Boys are too distressed to retain information they study and girls have way too pleasure on their hands. As a result, the average boy is in too much agony to be educated and the average girl is spoiled-rotten and excessively-protected [by macho men] to the point where she feels she doesn't need education.
On average, the adult woman:
1. Is physically weaker than the adult man
2. Is more emotional than the adult man
3. Is better behaved than the adult man
4. Is far more likely to be a victim of opposite-gender violence [e.g. violence may be sexual, domestic, or spousal abuse] than the adult man
5. Can get or be pregnant whereas the adult man can't
6. Is physically more delicate than the adult manAlso, it is likely natural for a man to want to treat an adult woman partially over an adult man -- this is seen in many mammalian species. For example in many species of large mammals -- such as bison --, the adult males are rough with each other but tender with the adult females.
Due to this, I believe males of all ages should treat adult women "better" than adult men. However, NO male -- of any age -- should *ever* be socially-mandated to treat girl-children better than boy-children because this will cause boys to develop an intense and life-long hatred for young girls and a hatred for the macho men who teach these boys to defer to girls. This sexism against boy children will likely cause boys to also despise society and it's irrational norms.
In addition, science has already proven that average girl-child is NOT *innately*:
1. Weaker
2. More sensitive
3. More delicate
4. Lower-IQed
5. Slower
6. Less energetic
7. Less aggresive
8. Less violent
9. Less cold-hearted [or more hot-hearted]
10. Less openly abusive to members of the opposite gender
11. Less openly sexist against members of the opposite gender
12. More tense
13. More emotional
14. Less emotionally-stable
15. More compassionate
16. More mature in personality... than the average boy-child of the same age.
Boy = male under 18 years of age = child
Girl = female under 18 years of age = child
Woman = female who is 18 years of age or older = adult
Man = male who is 18 years of age or older = adult
-
I agree in principle with the notion of restricting the percentage of degree holders to 20-25% of the cohort.
Look at Taiwan. Since they 'upgraded' their polytechnics into universities, almost everyone is a degree holder, resulting in over-employment, where there are limited jobs for all these graduates, which lead to many people being over-qualified for their job.
Over-qualification is a waste of the country's resources, since it would be more productive for the country and these people to have their education meet the demands of the workplace. It would be hard, if not impractical, to do the other way, to create a workplace that meet the demands of education.
In Singapore, if everyone is a degree holder, who will end up filling the junior, executive level?In a system where 90-100% of the cohort gets a degree, we will have to:
1) Bring in massive number of foreign labour, junior workers to work under all these grads. We will end up with an overnight population boom, with 2,3 workers under each grad.
2) become unproductive. since job is scarce, people in order to survive, will end up taking up lower-quality jobs. so you may end up with degree-holders working as drivers, as salesman etc. Why waste their time and our country's resources if we could not provide for a career to match their qualification.
However, what im pissed is that our government has decided to self-bomb its logic, by allowing an influx of cheap foreign grads, who are displacing many of our non-grads, by virtue of a lower salary. so instead of observing the moral contract between the people and the Govt, where the people accepts a quota for degree placement in exchange for jobs for all, our non-grads are betrayed by the influx of more qualified foreign competitors.
-
99% people will want to work for a big company, only less than 1% will want to create Big company.
Instead of earning bacon in our economy, why not expand to India and other developing countries .Their economy have not reach a level of saturationa and have tons of room for development.
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 25:
Maybe the criticism in the U.S cable has merits:
Singapore boasts a highly competitive and well-regarded primary and secondary education system, but the number of Singaporeans completing a tertiary education is relatively low.
Only 23 percent of Singaporean students entering primary school complete a degree at a local four-year university.
In other knowledge-economies such as Japan's, around 50 percent of students complete a university degree.
However, according to Cheryl Chan, Assistant Director of the Planning Division at the Ministry of Education (MOE), the government does not plan to encourage more students to get a higher education.
The university enrollment rate will continue to be maintained at 20-25 percent because the Singaporean labor market does not need everyone to get a four-year degree, she asserted. ¶10.
(SBU) Singapore's education system has been criticized for being heavy on memorization and light on critical thinking and creativity.
Based on the British model, the system is highly test-focused and separates students (a process referred to as "streaming") at an early age between high, middle, and low achievers.
The GOS has slowly begun to introduce greater flexibility into the system by allowing "streaming" in subjects (rather than based on total average scores) and has created new magnet schools focused on mathematics, the arts, and sports.
But there are only three such schools, and the overall education system has changed little.
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2007/02/07SINGAPORE394.html
Agree. except u guys are narrowing things down. u say US. i say look at their crap-hole of an edu-crap-cation system. they boast having the world's finest unis? 50-80% of ALL those universities are by foriegners. to date, the USA has the LOUSIEST public school system ever in the world. Overpaid teachers, horrible academic results, low grad output, i tell u, singapore's edu system may be hell, but given a choice btw US and singapore, unless i can afford a private school in US, i say i'd rather stick here. in US, join a public schoool, u have no future either, unless u wanna be a janitor? i'm not saying here's that great either. given a choice i'd rather fly the europe, where at least the public schooling systems are remotely decent. -
Originally posted by Darkness_hacker99:
99% people will want to work for a big company, only less than 1% will want to create Big company.
Instead of earning bacon in our economy, why not expand to India and other developing countries .Their economy have not reach a level of saturationa and have tons of room for development.
+1. If some one else can really do it. -
I dun recall I was taught grammer in school. also we were not taught phonetics.
thats why our grammar and pronunciation sucks man.
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
I dun recall I was taught grammer in school. also we were not taught phonetics.
thats why our grammar and pronunciation sucks man.
Power, where got learn English don't have learn grammer one? That's impossible given the way English works. Even native English speakers won't have perfect grammer. You're already using grammer like taught and were, so how could you not have learned grammer in school ?It's just an accent, we speak English just fine. Do you think someone from Ireland is understandable to someone in the MidWest of America? At the worst we just need to repeat ourselves a few time to get the pronouciation right, we already got the basic structure. It's not enough to make us impossible to understand in any English speaking country.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Power, where got learn English don't have learn grammer one? That's impossible given the way English works. Even native English speakers won't have perfect grammer. You're already using grammer like taught and were, so how could you not have learned grammer in school ?It's just an accent, we speak English just fine. Do you think someone from Ireland is understandable to someone in the MidWest of America? At the worst we just need to repeat ourselves a few time to get the pronouciation right, we already got the basic structure. It's not enough to make us impossible to understand in any English speaking country.
English? Do you need english to do business in Asia and especially so, China.?
Money has no grammer
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
English? Do you need english to do business in Asia and especially so, China.?
Money has no grammer
Is that so? Then ask urself why english is now becoming a far-more sought after language in China now? -
Look...
Everything bash PAP, w/o looking what's going on in developed world..
Sometimes things has its merits... Look at say Japan, lots of uni grads, but can they find a job? Does it incur any form of taxpayers money for their degree?
Then come back to local scene, seriously for some courses is the uni really teaching? Many times it's solely on self study. If that's the case, then seriously not everyone is suitable to pursue it.
When clearly everyone has diff learning adapbility, it's rather used as a cover to bash the PAP for everything.
Anyway, there's alrdy issue w/ the 4 year degree course structure. Students for some courses are alrdy getting overloaded in order to cover the syallabus within the stipulated 4 yrs...
Anyway, the uni campus can't take in anymore ppl beyond a planned 5 yr course. It's alry stretched to its limit.
-
Originally posted by βÎτά:
They'd rather let fewer Singaporeans get a university education and make up the shortfall of university graduates from foreign talents.
As opposed to letting more Singaporeans get a tertiary education and make up the shortfall of low skilled labour from foreigners.
From the first day you step into primary school, your career roles have more or less been determined by the greater "god".
Those jobs you want to do?
You want those service, no one wants to do... Then dun have those provided kpkb as if you're owed...
-
job expectations increases with higher education.
so how does it help us to have more degree holders if there arent enough positions in the market to fill these graduates?
-
Originally posted by dragg:
job expectations increases with higher education.
so how does it help us to have more degree holders if there arent enough positions in the market to fill these graduates?
exactly! As I have mentioned in other similar threads, Singapore is just not big enough to accomodate so many degree holders. China is already facing this problem. -
i think many singaporeans are frustrated with the govt to the point of being irrational.
every policies has its good and bad points. it cant satisfy everybody.
there is no perfect govt. there is no perfect country.
if you compare the good to the bad singapore is still a good place to live.
my point is tackle issues that genuinely needs to be corrected. if we complaint too much on issues that are actually not bad it clouds the whole thing.
-
Why not make it more valuable by imparting more skills be it via degree or diploma level.
Whichever society would have diff level of people in order to get the society to be working. Need not guess how we got here in the first place, there wasn't many degree holders to begin with.
